US embassy cables: Intentional plan to decentralise Kosovo won't work, says EU official

US embassy cables: Intentional plan to decentralise Kosovo won't work, says EU official

·  guardian.co.uk, Thursday 9 December 2010 21.30 GMT

 

Thursday, 09 July 2009, 16:15
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 06 STOCKHOLM 000418
SIPDIS
EO 12958 DECL: 07/09/2029
TAGS EUN, PREL, PGOV, IR, RS">RS, SW
SUBJECT: EUR A/S GORDON'S JULY 3 MEETINGS WITH THE EU
POLITICAL DIRECTORS
STOCKHOLM 00000418 001.2 OF 006
Classified By: CDA LAURA J. KIRKCONNELL FOR REASONS 1.4(B) AND (D)

Summary

1. The US embassy in Stockholm reports on a meeting of top US State Department and European foreign policy diplomats which range over the entire gamut of global hotspots. On Kosovo, the EU's Robert Cooper voices skepticism about the centerpiece of the UN settlement that brought Kosovo independence – decentralization of local government to enable Kosovo Serbs to run their own affairs and therefore reduce the pressure for partition. Key passage highlighted in yellow.
2. Read related article

-------

SUMMARY

-------

1. (U) Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Phil Gordon met with the 27 EU Member State Political Directors in Stockholm July 3. He then met with the EU Political Directors "troika," comprising Swedish PolDir Bjorn Lyrvall, EU Council Secretariat DG Robert Cooper, EU External Relations Commission PolDir Karel Kovanda, Spanish PolDir Alfonso Lucini, and EU Council Secretariat Policy Coordinator Helga Schmid.

2. (C) On Iran, A/S Gordon emphasized that post-election developments have not altered the Obama Administration's fundamental approach to the nuclear question, and UK PolDir Mark Lyall-Grant urged the EU to be in position "to move rapidly" with new sanctions at the beginning of the Spanish EU Presidency in January 2010. On the Middle East peace process, the United States was focused on creating the conditions necessary for peace before proposing full-scale negotiations. This would require a stop to Israeli settlements and efforts to build up Palestinian security capacity and an end to violence and incitement. French PolDir Gerard Araud raised the possibility of an EU security force in support of a possible agreement. Regarding the U.S.-Russia relationship, Gordon said that the Russians are testing the Obama Administration to see if it will compromise on its principles; it won,t.

----

IRAN

----

3. (C) Swedish MFA Political Director Bjorn Lyrvall opened A/S Gordon's discussion with the EU 27 PolDirs by noting growing concern over internal developments in Iran following last month's presidential elections. Terming as "outrageous" regime statements blaming the unrest on foreign actors, Lyrvall discussed the importance of EU unity in response to the detention of local employees of the British embassy in Tehran and noted that the EU Political Directors had discussed "possible responses" to the detentions during their meetings earlier in the day. Asked to brief on the nuclear file, EU DG for External and Politico-Military Affairs Robert Cooper replied that he had little to say. The post-election unrest in Iran seemed to entail "no new cooperation, perhaps rather less," and the Iranian regime was now weaker and less legitimate. Cooper continued that "the prospects look difficult" for a meaningful Iranian response to the P5 1 offer, and that we had always seen this year as the key year for addressing this issue. Cooper concluded that, in the second half of this year, we must have "the beginning of a breakthrough."

4. (C) In his introduction, A/S Gordon expressed the importance the Obama Administration attaches to working with Europe, stressing that the U.S. realizes that it cannot handle matters alone and that Europe is our most natural foreign policy partner. Concerning Iranian election unrest, he said that the Administration's policy had denied the regime the opportunity to blame the U.S. so now it was turning to the UK. Asked about links between the post-election domestic situation and the negotiations on the nuclear file, A/S Gordon suggested that the regime might pursue one of several options. It might decide to engage the P5 1, which A/S Gordon (and other EU PolDirs) assessed as unlikely. Or it could pretend to engage, while forestalling meaningful action. Lastly, it could refuse any dialogue.

5. (C) While now is not the time for the USG to increase its engagement, it is also not the time to reduce it, Gordon continued. The President's approach would continue to highlight the path Iran would need to take to address international concerns. But the clock was ticking as long as enrichment continued, Gordon added, so he urged the PolDirs to start thinking now about actions they might need to take by the end of the year to increase pressure on Tehran. "Each day that passes sharpens the binary choice between accepting a nuclear Iran or a military strike, either by Israel or the U.S.," Gordon continued. The successful development of a nuclear capability by Iran would spell the death of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, he concluded, because the international community would not be able to maintain credibility with other would-be nuclear powers.

6. (C) UK Political Director Lyall-Grant agreed that the prospects for negotiations with Iran were not good, but

STOCKHOLM 00000418 002.4 OF 006

argued that the P5 1 must persevere "because the alternatives are grim." If talks do not yield progress soon, then the EU must "discreetly" think about additional sanctions even in the absence of a UN Security Council resolution, which would be unlikely given the Russian and Chinese positions. The EU should be in position "to move rapidly" at the beginning of the Spanish EU Presidency (in January 2010) with a set of sanctions that are "very substantive" in the areas of "trade, banking and possibly the hydrocarbons sector." He also expressed gratitude for U.S. and EU solidarity with the UK concerning its local embassy employees in Tehran.

7. (C) Iran was turning into "a military dictatorship with an extremist ideology," stated German Political Director Volker Stanzel. Therefore, the international community must not "play the game the Iranian leaders want" and must not escalate in response to Iranian escalations. Rather, engagement with the Iranian opposition should continue where possible. Moreover, the international community should press Tehran for a "yes/no" answer to the P5 1 proposal by the time of the UN General Assembly in September. Efforts to keep Russia and China "in the boat" would be important, but even without them the EU and United States should "go ahead anyway" with additional autonomous sanctions.

8. (C) Spanish PolDir Alfonso Lucini noted "consensus that we need to prepare a Plan B," but asked whether enhanced sanctions would "be enough" if Russia and China were not on board. Saying he preferred further UNSC action on Iran, A/S Gordon acknowledged that PRC leaders' concerns regarding China's internal stability*which requires sufficient oil imports to maintain economic growth*was a key factor in PRC policy on Iran. And while Russia did not want to see a nuclear Iran, it might also be motivated by a desire to ensure that the United States and the EU do not enjoy a major foreign policy success in the Middle East. Indeed, some in Moscow might see advantages for Russia if Israel or the United States used force against Iran, which in their view would seriously damage U.S. standing in the region, as well as dramatically increase the price of oil. Even if Russia and China refused to support a new UNSC, joint U.S.-EU actions would have a powerful impact on trade -- and be a powerful statement with respect to regime legitimacy. And if there were no new effort on sanctions, that failure to act would send a message to the rest of the world about the low risk of pursuing a nuclear program.

-------------------------

MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS

-------------------------

9. (C) Turning to the Middle East peace process, A/S Gordon noted that after extensive consultations in the region, Special Envoy Mitchell had concluded the time was not ripe for full-scale negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. Rather, the conditions for successful negotiations needed to be created first. The United States had "visibly and publicly" called for Israel to halt all settlement activity, which helped create an atmosphere in which we could ask that Arabs do hard things as well. S/E Mitchell has been urging Arab governments to support the Palestinian Authority's security services in an effort to enhance security in the West Bank and Gaza. The U.S. saw no logic to engagement with Hamas until it renounces violence and recognizes all past agreements, A/S Gordon continued. While the U.S. and EU both need to remain engaged with both the Israelis and the Palestinians, there might be benefits in Washington focusing its efforts on getting a stop to settlement activity while the EU focused on efforts to build security in the PA-administered territories.

10. (C) Lyrvall said the EU very much welcomed the U.S. approach and the President's Cairo speech. The gap between the Israelis and Palestinians is very deep. Greek PolDir Tryphon Paraskevopoulos stated that "no one in the Middle East thinks Iran will actually use nuclear weapons against Israel." Rather, they think Israeli concerns over the Iranian nuclear program are motivated by a desire to not lose their strategic dominance. He noted that whenever the international community took actions against Iran, Iran responded by firing up Hamas and Hizbullah to cause trouble. A regional approach, therefore, was needed, including improved ties with Syria. The Greek PolDir concluded elliptically that Qatar and Saudi Arabia needed to "stop playing with fire." A/S Gordon noted that Syria is the conduit for Iranian arms into the region, and that U.S. diplomacy is focused on weaning Syria away from Iran.

11. (C) French PolDir Araud said that we should not get into any prolonged negotiations with the Israelis on settlements;

STOCKHOLM 00000418 003.2 OF 006

the core issue is negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. The Knesset is unable to act. We already know the parameters of the peace agreement. If there is no strong international commitment to working this, the parties will not negotiate, he said. Nothing will be possible if the U.S., the EU, and the Arab states are not united in pressing both sides. He also raised the possibility of an EU security force in support of a possible agreement. A/S Gordon agreed with Araud on settlements, but said that we need to improve the context for real negotiations by making progress on smaller issues, and that the U.S. call for stopping settlements resonates with the Arabs, and helps with asking them for funding for the PA and reaching out to Israel.

--------------------

AFGHANISTAN/PAKISTAN

--------------------

12. (SBU) A/S Gordon outlined the significant steps the Obama Administration was taking in Afghanistan: 21,000 additional troops, the appointments of SR Holbrooke, LTG McChrystal, Amb. Eikenberry, as well as certain changes in strategy such as on narcotics. He asked that European governments do more to explain to their publics that the EU is not helping the Americans with "an American war." Afghanistan and Pakistan are global problems with serious security and humanitarian concerns for Europe. Lyrvall agreed, pointing to ongoing discussions within the EU on doing more on the civilian side, and noting that the upcoming Afghan elections were crucial. European Commission PolDir Kovanda stated that the EU will deploy 250 observers from Member States, PRTs and local missions to monitor the elections along with 8,000 Afghan observers, and expressed gratitude for NATO,s indispensable in extremis support.

------

RUSSIA

------

13. (C) At Lyrvall's request, A/S Gordon offered some impressions to the group on U.S. relations with Russia. He said that we are looking to restore relations while also stressing our core principles; e.g., no spheres of influence, democracies have the right to choose alliances, and non-recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The Russians, for their part, are exploring U.S. willingness to compromise in the name of better relations, which we will not do. A/S Gordon said that with regard to the Medvedev proposals, the U.S. is not prepared to compromise on European security. Lyrvall asked about expectations for the Moscow Summit. A/S Gordon said we were not trying to overstate expectations, but we are talking seriously with the Russians on arms control and Afghanistan. Lithuanian PolDir Eitvydas Bajarunas urged a common U.S.-EU approach on Belarus and Georgia, and A/S Gordon replied that we can only interpret the Zeltser release as an expression of Belarus's interest in better relations, and that he was planning to go to Belarus himself. He said Georgia was a good example of the U.S. not compromising its principles in the name of better relations with Moscow-- in fact, Russia had been isolated on decisions regarding OSCE and UNOMIG ) and he noted the Vice President's upcoming trip to Georgia and Ukraine.

--------------

TROIKA MEETING

--------------

14. (U) After his meeting with EU27 PolDirs, Gordon held a smaller meeting with the EU Political Directors "troika," comprising Swedish PolDir Bjorn Lyrvall, EU Council Secretariat DG Robert Cooper, EU External Relations Commission PolDir Karel Kovanda Kovanda, Spanish PolDir Alfonso Lucini, and EU Council Secretariat Policy Coordinator Helga Schmid. This smaller discussion focused on Russia, the Eastern Partnership region, the Western Balkans, and non-proliferation.

------

RUSSIA

------

15. (C) A/S Gordon conveyed that the U.S. may be making some progress with Russia on START follow-on negotiations, and may also be making progress with regard to cooperation on Afghanistan. We have little to no progress to report regarding Georgia. The Russians are testing the Obama Administration to see if it will compromise; it will not. Lyrvall commented that there have been no breakthroughs in EU-Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) negotiations, and noted that the Russians see the EU's

STOCKHOLM 00000418 004.2 OF 006

Eastern Partnership initiative through a zero-sum lens; if it encourages closer EU ties with six former-Soviet states, it must be anti-Russia. Lucini recommended engaging Russia in the Eastern Partnership through cooperation on concrete projects. Helga Schmid praised the OSCE Ministerial in Corfu for its emphasis on the indivisibility of Euro-Atlantic security.

-------

GEORGIA

-------

16. (C) Schmid commented that the Geneva process is useful because it is the only venue which includes all parties to the Georgia conflict. She encouraged the U.S. to press Georgia to work with the Abkhaz; the Abkhaz have been rebuffed in their overtures to the Georgians, and are left with no option but to seek Russia's support. Kovanda similarly urged outreach to the Abkhaz; they are looking for some daylight with the Russians, and we should help. EU negotiations on visa facilitation with Georgia are not going well. Lucini said we need to let Georgians know we support them without giving Saakashvili "a blank check."

17. (C) A/S Gordon said the Georgians have shown reasonable restraint with protesters lately, marking a departure from previous behavior. Vice President Biden's upcoming trip to Georgia will emphasize the need to strengthen democratic institutions. A/S Gordon inquired about potential U.S. participation in the EU's Georgia monitoring mission. An American contribution*either official USG or via NGOs--would showcase our commitment, and could potentially deter future Russian misbehavior. Schmid noted that U.S. participation would also mean opening the mission to Turkey and Ukraine; U.S. political support might be preferable. Cooper agreed that it would be hard for the EU to resist Turkish participation in the EU monitoring mission if the U.S. participated, as Turkey is an EU candidate country. Turkish participation would not necessarily be a bad thing, but it would "need some thinking about."

-------

BELARUS

-------

18. (C) Schmid said the Belarusians are under huge pressure from Russia to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia; the Belarusian FM told her so personally at Corfu. Belarus is bankrupt, and therefore vulnerable to Russian exploitation. The EU is looking into possible European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and IMF support, on the order of two to three billion dollars. Schmid said "I don't like Luka, but(" the Zeltser release was clearly intended as a signal.

-------------------

EASTERN PARTNERSHIP

-------------------

19. (C) A/S Gordon said the U.S. understands this; we would like to associate ourselves with the EU's Eastern Partnership initiative. Lyrvall said an EU-Ukraine FTA is looking increasingly unlikely due to Ukrainian squabbling; Moldova is likewise "a mess." It is difficult to anchor those countries into the European integration process. On Armenia, A/S Gordon said that resolving Nagorno-Karabakh is the key to unlocking Turkish-Armenian relations, and consequently regional energy supplies. The Russians have been reasonably productive on this account, but it is unclear whether they are just going through the motions or are seriously engaged, particularly as a Nagorno-Karabakh solution would facilitate a Southern Corridor gas route. Cooper asserted that if the Russians really wanted to resolve Nagorno-Karabakh, they would have done so already. On Ukraine, A/S Gordon asserted that the U.S. does not want to unconditionally bail Ukraine out of its economic troubles. We should let IFIs (particularly the IMF) help Ukraine. The U.S. and EU need to urge Ukraine's unwilling government to take difficult steps in this regard.

---------------

WESTERN BALKANS

---------------

20. (C) Pointing to EU High Representative Solana/Vice President Biden's and Swedish FM Bildt/Deputy Secretary Steinberg's recent joint engagement in the Balkans, A/S Gordon said the more high-level U.S.-EU cooperation we can organize in the Balkans, the better. Lyrvall said that Sweden wants to keep the EU's enlargement agenda moving

STOCKHOLM 00000418 005.2 OF 006

during the Swedish Presidency. Montenegro's application is with the Commission, and Macedonia may receive a relatively positive EU progress assessment. Fairly or unfairly, Macedonia may have to compromise on the name issue in order to move forward on EU accession. In Serbia, implementation of the interim agreement is "deadlocked," and Dutch FM Verhagen's recent trip to Serbia is unlikely to assuage the Netherlands' concerns.

21. (C) On Bosnia and Herzegovina, FM Bildt and Deputy Secretary Steinberg planned to meet the following week to discuss the Prud process. It is critical that BiH takes ownership of the 5 2 process, Lyrvall said. The EU is enthusiastic about a transition in BiH as long as the conditions are met. There has to be recognition that the EUSR mission would be less "intrusive"; rather, the EU would present a "pull factor" for reform, he added. EU enlargement policy has been a successful incentive for reform elsewhere in the region. A significant shift in the Althea mission should not take place until transition is secure on the civilian side, Lyrvall concluded. Cooper said there might come a point where we need to "force the issue" of state property; if we do not resolve this before the autumn PIC, then we'll lose two years because of the Bosnian elections. Cooper added that after a "miserable" PIC, we should insist on conditionality. BiH Croats have gotten the message from Zagreb to be productive.

22. (C) A/S Gordon asked whether the Swedes might invite the parties and the U.S. to Stockholm to resolve the state property issue. The U.S. agrees that OHR is not doing well, but we are reluctant to take away the crutch and make a leap of faith. He recounted a side conversation with French PolDir Gerard Araud, who said that if we wean the Bosnians off of the "drug" of OHR, then the EU can be the "methadone." Furthermore, to conduct a military transition at the same time as the OHR/EU transition would send the wrong signal and might invite problems. Lucini said EU member states are talking to their militaries about the need to stay in BiH, but militaries are pushing back. Lyrvall conceded the need for "a comfort blanket."

23. (C) On Macedonia, A/S Gordon said the U.S. is still letting UNSR Nimetz lead, and noted that Deputy Secretary Steinberg has talked to the Greeks. While the Macedonians need to "climb down" on issues such as naming their airport, they have a reasonable case on other topics such as their language, the name of their citizenship, etc. Some "climbing down" is needed on both sides.

24. (C) On Serbia, A/S Gordon said that while we haven't spoken to ICTY prosecutor Brammertz, the U.S. is trying to provide further FBI and forensic assistance. The U.S. is trying to determine what Serbian steps are required in order to get the Dutch on board with Serbia's EU accession process. What is the gap between "full Serbian cooperation" and what the Serbs are currently doing, and how can it be filled? Cooper said we are caught in a vicious circle with Brammertz, who feels he cannot utter the words "full cooperation" but is trying to indicate as much in other terms.

25. (C) On Kosovo, Lyrvall noted the sensitivities raised by the fact that five EU member states do not recognize Kosovo's independence. However, even these recalcitrant member states would like to move forward with Kosovo's Euro-Atlantic integration. Lyrvall noted the issue of visa liberalization in the Balkans, and said the EU has leverage on the Serbs in this regard. Cooper stated that we have had some small successes in Kosovo and some failures. The Battle of Kosovo Polje anniversary passed without incident, with the Serbian royal family making some usefully anodyne speeches. But decentralization in Kosovo will not succeed. Serbian President Tadic has said that Serbia cannot call on Kosovo Serbs to vote in Kosovo,s elections. EUSR for Kosovo Pieter Feith thought we should think of 2011 as a deadline for bringing the ICO process to an end: according to Feith, once a state is up and running, the international community should step back. The "six point" agenda is largely dead. A/S Gordon relayed that Deputy Secretary Steinberg told Kosovo leaders that their comments on UNMIK were not helpful.

-----------------

NON-PROLIFERATION

-----------------

26. (C) Lyrvall said that the EU was very encouraged by the Obama Administration's approach on non-proliferation. A/S Gordon said that the Administration is serious about the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons, but realistic. If the international community hopes to promote a Fissile Material

STOCKHOLM 00000418 006.2 OF 006

Cut-off Treaty and create an international nuclear fuel bank, we must back the IAEA with resources. The Administration will try to get the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty ratified; the prospects for ratification are uncertain, but are better now than before, in part due to improvements in scientific modeling over the past ten years. Regarding START talks with Russia, the Administration seeks a framework that permits fewer weapons than the Moscow Treaty and that also includes delivery vehicles and warheads. Both sides want an agreement, but ratification is always a question. Raising Iran, Cooper pointed out that a nuclear-armed Iran would "blow the NPT out of the water." If we allow Iran to develop the bomb, how can we credibly say "no" to the Egyptians and the Saudis?

27. (U) Assistant Secretary Gordon has cleared this cable. KIRKCONNELL

 

EU officials give first analysis of WikiLeaks impact

EU officials give first analysis of WikiLeaks impact

Soldiers roll up US flag. The leaks are not going down well in Brussels so far, despite causing some amusement (Photo: Vince Alongi)

ANDREW RETTMAN

03.12.2010 @ 17:57 CET

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - More investment in European External Action Service (EEAS) security, loss of goodwill in the EU's special relationship with the US and heightened tension in the Middle East are all likely consequences of the WikiLeaks scandal, EU insiders say.

WikiLeaks is a no-go area in on-the-record press briefings in Brussels, with EU spokespeople saying they do not comment on leaks or trying to brush them off as a distraction to real business. But senior EU officials interviewed on an anonymous basis by EUobserver in the wake of the publications say it will have practical and political implications for EU foreign-policy-making.

EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton is set to face pressure to spend more money on cyber security and counter-espionage measures in the EEAS' hub and its foreign delegations. The scandal comes just as a special Ashton taskforce is finalising plans for the physical security of the EEAS headquarters in Brussels and installing new encryption systems for sending cables back-and-forth to its 136 foreign embassies.

European Commission delegations in the past mostly cabled on mundane issues, such as distributing aid. But EEAS appointments of senior politicians to head missions in, for example, Tbilisi and Beijing, indicate the cables will be more spicy in future.

Security specialists in Brussels are "shocked" and "astonished" that a 23-year-old official, the suspected source of the US breach, had access to verbatim transcripts of ambassadors' conversations in top foreign postings.

"The juicy tidbits, the verbatim stuff, should only be seen by a very few people. If Solana, say, had spoken to the King of Jordan, we would afterward learn that: 'We are confident the Jordanians think the following' or 'the Saudis are nervous about the Iranian situation.' Not 'Solana and the King said so-and-so on such-and-such a date'," one EU contact explained.

The contact admitted that the human element is never 100 percent secure: "Vetting is at best a deterrent, a negative exercise - you need to know the guy does not have a girlfriend in the SVR [Russian military intelligence]. But all the big spies in history passed their vetting."

Some EU experts are confident a WikiLeaks-type incident cannot happen in Brussels even on present arrangements - top-level-classified documents from the EU's intelligence-sharing bureau, the Joint Situation Centre, for example, are circulated in paper copies only. But others are less sanguine. "The lesson learned is that any secret can appear in the public sphere at any time, and more and more due to the Internet ... a piece of paper can be scanned," a French intelligence expert said.

Meanwhile, EU officials are on tenterhooks for US gossip on their colleagues, with Brussels expecting about 500 cables from the US mission to the EU to be released shortly.

The 600 cables so far in the open have not revealed anything major about US interests that EU counterparts did not already know. But the leaks will make EU personnel "more cautious" in what they tell their US colleagues in future and have generated antipathy toward the State Department.

While the cables make entertaining reading, US ambassadors, many of whom are political appointments rather than professional diplomats, are seen by some as indulging in "tittle-tattle" and journalistic-type sensationalism that would not be tolerated in European foreign ministries.

Washington appears weak because it was unable to quickly shut down WikiLeaks. A set of cables on the 2008 Russia-Georgia war also demystifies the US as a superpower. Senior US diplomats come out looking as if they "fell asleep at the wheel" and gullibly swallowed Georgian reports, one EU source said: "It shows the US is not omnipotent. People expected them to have spy images of who moved when, who shot first. But they had no idea."

Brussels will in future find it harder to believe in US statements on supporting multilateralism.

One source in the EU institutions said the State Department seems to have divided the world into "white faces" and "indians," with the white faces trying to lead the indians around in a game of manipulation. "Their dealings with European capitals show they put more weight in their bilateral relations than in dealing with the EU," the source added.

"It's rather ugly. There's an element of condescension," a European specialist on Middle East policy said. "The cables show a kind of paranoia about terrorism and Iran. But there is no evidence of any vision for the region beyond that, of how to resolve the issues, except by further militarisation and co-opting people into counter-terrorism operations."

The contact feared that US foreign policy will degrade further if Washington goes back to a pre-9/11 model of information-sharing, in which junior officials have access to only small chunks of information, helping the top cadre to quash ideas that do not fit their agenda: "They will say: 'Interesting. But you don't have the full picture.' The few at the top of the pyramid will find it easier to protect the status quo. It will lead to self-censorship and dysfunctionality."

Rocking the boat

Laying aside tension on Iran, conflict-prone Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon are quieter than ever in the past two years.

The WikiLeaks impact on the region is unpredictable. One contact said it might refresh diplomatic relationships as US personnel frantically row-back on their published comments. Another believes it could lead to an outbreak of anti-Western protests as in the case of the 2003 Mohammed cartoons after the cables are translated into Arabic and filter down to street level.

In the worst-case scenario, US cables on the 2005 assassination of Lebanese leader Rafik Hariri and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) set up to probe the murder could push forward the publication of the STL verdict or derail a tentative agreement among Arab powers on how to handle the ruling. The Hague is carefully stage-managing the verdict, which is expected to blame Hezbollah, in case Hezbollah provokes a conflict with Israel in order to distract from loss of face at home.

EU experts agree that the WikiLeaks cables are authentic and that Mr Assange does not appear to be the agent of a third country. One EU official noted that if the leaks were, say, a US plot to justify a military strike on Iran, a much smaller sample would have been released.

"I don't think they [WikiLeaks] really understand what they have. If there is any political agenda here, it is to weaken the US government. It happened on his [US President Barack Obama] watch," the source said

 

http://euobserver.com/9/31422/?rk=1

 

 

Wikileaks papers: Washington's manic obsession with Iran

The Anti-Empire Report

December 3rd, 2010
by William Blum
www.killinghope.org

If the house where Julian Assange of Wikileaks is staying is destroyed by a Predator drone, and the United States denies any involvement ... Well, I'll believe them.

One of the most common threads running through the Wikileaks papers is Washington's manic obsession with Iran. In country after country the United States exerts unceasing pressure on the government to tighten the noose around Iran's neck, to make the American sanctions as extensive and as painful as can be, to inflate the alleged Iranian nuclear threat, to discourage normal contact as if Iran were a leper.

"Fear of 'different world' if Iran gets nuclear weapons. Embassy cables reveal how US relentlessly cajoles and bullies governments not to give succour to Tehran," read a Guardian of London headline on November 28. And we're told that Arab governments support the United States in this endeavor, that fear of Iran is widespread. John Kerry, the Democratic head of the Senate foreign relations committee, jumped on this bandwagon. "Things that I have heard from the mouths of King Abdullah [of Saudi Arabia] and Hosni Mubarak [Egyptian president] and others are now quite public," he said. He went on to say there was a "consensus on Iran". (Guardian, December 2) If all this is to have real meaning, the implication must be that the Arab people feel this way, and not just their dictator leaders. So let us look at some numbers.

The annual "Arab Public Opinion Poll", was conducted this past summer by Zogby International and the University of Maryland, in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. A sample of the results:

• "If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, which of the following is the likely outcome for the Middle East region?" More positive 57%, Would not matter 20, More negative 21.
• Amongst those who believe that Iran seeks nuclear weapons, 70% believe that Iran has the right to its nuclear program.
• "In a world where there is only one superpower, which of the following countries would you prefer to be that superpower?"
  France 35%, China 16, Germany 13, Britain 9, Russia 8, United States 7, Pakistan 6.
• "Name TWO countries that you think pose the biggest threat to you." Israel 88%, US 77, Algeria 10, Iran 10, UK 8, China 3, Syria 1.
• "Which world leader (outside your own country) do you admire most?" (partial list) Recep Erdogan [Turkey] 20%, Hugo Chavez 13, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 12, Hassan Nasrallah [Hezbollah/Lebanon] 9, Osama bin Laden 6, Saddam Hussein 2. (Barack Obama not mentioned) ¹

Also in Wikileaks: " ... during a meeting of Iran's Supreme National Security Council (an) enraged Revolutionary Guard Chief of Staff Mohammed Ali Jafari allegedly got into a heated argument with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and slapped him in the face because the generally conservative president had, surprisingly, advocated freedom of the press."

How will the White House and Israeli propaganda machines and the US media deal with this? Their favorite whipping boy, President Ahmadinejad — oppressive dictator, stager of fraudulent elections, "Holocaust denier", nuclear threat to all that is decent and holy — a champion of press freedom? And how powerful can he be? It's not mentioned whether the man who slapped him suffered any punishment.

What will we learn next from Wikileaks? That Hugo Chávez doesn't really eat babies?

"Will that be naked pictures, or being fondled, with your flight ticket, miss?"

We've all heard about it of course, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) x-raying under people's clothes or groping them like on a clumsy second date. Maybe the new security procedures will finally disturb enough people enough times so that they'll start to raise the issue that dare not speak its name: What can we do to stop creating all the anti-American terrorists we're now engaged full time in protecting ourselves from?

As despicable as their philosophy and actions are, anti-American terrorists are not just mindless, evil madmen from another planet. They are not motivated by hatred or envy of American freedom or democracy (as George W. liked to tell us), or of American wealth, secular government, or culture. They are instead motivated by decades of terrible things done to their homelands by US foreign policy. There should be no doubt of this, for there are numerous examples of terrorists explicitly citing American policies as the prime motivation behind their acts.² It works the same all over the world. In the period of the 1950s to the 1980s in Latin America, in response to a long string of hateful Washington policies, there were countless acts of terrorism against US diplomatic and military targets as well as the offices of US corporations. 9/11 was a globalized version of the Columbine High School disaster. When you bully people long enough they are going to strike back.

The US bombing, invasion, occupation and/or torture in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia in recent years, as well as the eternal Israeli-US genocide against the Palestinian people, have created countless new anti-American terrorists. We'll be hearing from them for an awfully long time.

Following an act of terrorism, we rarely receive from our officials and media even a slightly serious discussion of the terrorists' motivation. Was there any kind of deep-seated grievance or resentment with anything or anyone American being expressed? Any perceived wrong they wished to make right? Anything they sought to obtain revenge for? And why is the United States the most common target of terrorists?

But such questions are virtually forbidden in the mainstream world. At a White House press briefing in January concerning an attempt to blow up a US airliner on Christmas day 2009, conducted by Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security John Brennan, veteran reporter Helen Thomas raised a question:

Thomas: "What is really lacking always for us is you don't give the motivation of why they want to do us harm. ... What is the motivation? We never hear what you find out on why."

Brennan: "Al Qaeda is an organization that is dedicated to murder and wanton slaughter of innocents. ... [They] attract individuals like Mr. Abdulmutallab and use them for these types of attacks. He was motivated by a sense of religious sort of drive. Unfortunately, al Qaeda has perverted Islam, and has corrupted the concept of Islam, so that [they're] able to attract these individuals. But al Qaeda has the agenda of destruction and death."

Thomas: "And you're saying it's because of religion?"

Brennan: "I'm saying it's because of an al Qaeda organization that uses the banner of religion in a very perverse and corrupt way."

Thomas: "Why?"

Brennan: "I think ... this is a long issue, but al Qaeda is just determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland."

Thomas: "But you haven't explained why." ³

Osama bin Laden, in an audiotape, also commented about the Christmas Day would-be bomber: "The message we wanted you to receive through him is that America shall not dream about security until we witness it in Palestine." ⁴

We have as well the case of Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, a Jordanian doctor-turned-suicide bomber, who killed seven CIA employees at a base in Afghanistan last December 30. His widow later declared: "I am proud of him. ... My husband did this against the U.S. invasion." Balawi himself had written on the Internet: "I have never wished to be in Gaza, but now I wish to be a ... car bomb that takes the lives of the biggest number of Jews to hell." ⁵

It should be noted that the CIA base attacked by Balawi was heavily involved in the selection of targets for the Agency's remote-controlled aircraft along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, a program that killed more than 300 people in the previous year. ⁶

So, feel-ups of our private parts and involuntary disrobing are the price we pay for waging war against the world. We get our cavities probed because our victims get predator drones up their asses. ⁷

"Thank you for not putting a bomb in your luggage."

"Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear — kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor — with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant funds demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real."

– General Douglas MacArthur, 1957 ⁸

Do you remember the "shoe bomber"? Richard Reid was his name and he was aboard an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami on December 22, 2001; he tried to detonate explosives hidden in his shoes, didn't succeed, and was overpowered by attendants and passengers. It's because of him that we have to take our shoes off at the airport.

There was also "the underwear bomber", Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian, referred to above. On Christmas Day, 2009, he tried to set off plastic explosives sewn in his underwear while aboard a Northwest Airlines flight as the plane approached the Detroit airport. But he failed to detonate them properly, producing only some popping noises and a flame; another passenger jumped him and restrained him as others put out the fire. It's because of him that we now have to, virtually, take our underwear off at airports.

Then there was Faisal Shahzad, the "Times Square bomber", who on May 1 of this year parked his car in the heart of New York City, tried to detonate various explosive devices in the car, but succeeded in producing only smoke. He then walked away from the car, leaving it to lead to his arrest. It's because of him that cars are no longer permitted in Times Square. (No, that's a joke, but maybe not for long.)

The incompetence of these three men in being unable to detonate their explosives is remarkable. You'd think they could have easily gotten that critical and relatively simple part of the operation down pat beforehand. What I find even more remarkable is that neither of the two men aboard airplanes thought of going into the bathroom, closing the door, and then trying to detonate the explosives. An eight-year-old child would have thought of that. Are we supposed to take these guys and these incidents seriously? Are we supposed to take the "threat" posed by such men seriously? A month before the Christmas incident Abdulmutallab's father had gone to the US embassy in Nigeria to express concern that his son was in Yemen and had fallen under the influence of religious extremists.⁹ Moreover, the New York Times later reported: "In early November, American intelligence authorities say they learned from a communications intercept of Qaeda followers in Yemen that a man named 'Umar Farouk' ... had volunteered for a coming operation." ¹⁰

And yet Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had no problem getting on an American airplane in Amsterdam and flying to the United States.

The latest example of the terrible terrorist threat was in late October when we were told that two packages addressed to Chicago had been found aboard American cargo planes, one in Dubai, the other in England, containing what might, or might not, be an explosive device; which might, or might not, have exploded. Authorities said it was not known if the intent was to detonate the packages in flight or in Chicago.

Now get this. Terrorists, we are told, are shipping bombs in packages to the United States. They of course would want to make the packages as innocuous looking as can be, right? Nothing that would provoke any suspicion in the mind of an already very suspicious American security establishment, right? So what do we have? The packages were mailed from YEMEN ... and addressed to JEWISH SYNAGOGUES in Chicago. ... Well folks, nothing to see here, just keep moving.

Is it also perhaps of interest that L'Affaire Package Bombs took place less than a week before election day, perchance focusing the American public's mind away from things economic?

Some questions to ask our quaint little Teaparty friends

The Teaparty folks never tire of calling for "smaller government". How sweet. Most other Republicans repeat the same mantra ad nauseam as well, as do many liberals (not to be confused with progressives). So for all these individuals I have some questions:

• When there's a plane crash the government sends investigators to the crash site to try to determine the cause of the accident; this is information that can be used to make air travel safer. But it's really BIG GOVERNMENT, forcing the airlines to fully cooperate, provide all relevant information, secrecy is not permitted, and make changes or face severe penalties. Do you think the government should stop doing this?
• Following this year's BP oil spill do you think the government was right to bully and threaten the company for an explanation and solution for the catastrophe, or should it have been "hands off" for the sake of small government?
• Following a major earthquake there's usually a cry from many quarters: Stores should not be raising prices for basic necessities like water, generators, batteries, tree-removal services, diapers, etc. More grievances soon arise because landlords raise rents on vacant apartments after many dwellings in the city have been rendered uninhabitable. How dare they do that? people wail. Following the 1994 earthquake in Los Angeles the California Assembly proceeded to make it a crime for merchants to increase prices for vital goods and services by more than ten percent after a natural disaster.¹¹ Following the destruction caused by Hurricane Isabel in September 2003, the governor and attorney general of Virginia called on the legislature to pass the state's first anti-price-gouging law after receiving about 100 complaints from residents. North Carolina had enacted an anti-gouging law just shortly before.¹² Does such blatant big-government interference in our God-given Supply-and-Demand system bother you? Do you think that our legislators should simply allow "the magic of the marketplace" to do its magic?
• Do you think that the government should continue waging war against what they call "terrorists" abroad, since there's no bigger or more expensive big-government action than this?
• Do you think the government should continue with its electronic strip searches and body feel-ups at airports or should we allow the risk of bombs being brought on board airplanes? (Or — as an alternative to either — do you think the government should cease its bombing, invading, occupying, overthrowing, killing and torturing around the world so as to put an end to its creating anti-American terrorists?)
• If your bank fails — and hundreds have done so in recent years — are you willing to accept the loss of your life's savings? Or are you thankful that big, big government steps in, takes over the bank, and protects every penny of your savings?
• Do you think that big government — federal, state or local — should stop haranguing the citizenry about the environment: recycling, air pollution, water pollution, soil runoff, etc., etc., or that people should simply be allowed to do what is most convenient for them, their families, and their businesses?
• Do you think that manufacturers should have the right to run their factories à la a sweatshop in a Bangkok alley 50 years ago or that big government should throw its weight around to assure modern working conditions, with worker health and safety standards?
• When a prescription drug starts to kill or harm more and more people, who should decide when to pull it off the market: Big Government or the drug's manufacturer?
• Are you glad that food packages list the details of ingredients and nutrition? Who do you think is responsible for that?
• A huge number of Americans would be facing serious hunger if not for their food stamps; more than 40 million receive them. Where do you think food stamps come from? No, not from Sarah Palin.
• And where, pray tell, do you think unemployment insurance, housing subsidies, and Medicare come from? (There were of course, lord help us, the Teaparty signs: "Keep your government hands off my Medicare,"¹³ while simultaneously ridiculing Obama's push for "socialized medicine".) Some of you would probably rather see widespread hunger, poverty, homelessness, and illness in America than have people dependent upon the BigGovernmentMonster.
• Do you think that big government is no match for the private sector in efficiently getting large and important projects done? Big government in the United States has created great dams, marvelous national parks, an interstate highway system, the peace corps, social security, the National Institutes of Health, and the Smithsonian Institution; it's also landed men on the moon, wiped out polio, and built up an incredible military machine (ignoring for the moment what it's used for), and much more.
• Do you know that twice in recent years the federal government undertook major studies of many thousands of federal jobs to determine whether they could be done more efficiently by private contractors? On one occasion the federal employees won more than 80% of the time; on the other occasion 91%. Both studies took place under the Bush administration, which was hoping for different results. ¹⁴

We have to remind the American people of what they once knew but seem to have forgotten: that they don't want BIG government, or SMALL government; they don't want MORE government, or LESS government; they want government ON THEIR SIDE.

I think the Teapartyers are motivated primarily by two factors: 1) they don't have the intellectual competence or ideological independence to place the blame for the sick economy where it belongs: the recklessness and greed of Wall Street, the banks, and other financial corporations; and so they blame the president and his "socialist" policies; 2) the president is black.

Mark Brzezinski, son of Zbigniew, was a post-Cold War Fulbright Scholar in Poland: "I asked my students to define democracy. Expecting a discussion on individual liberties and authentically elected institutions, I was surprised to hear my students respond that to them, democracy means a government obligation to maintain a certain standard of living and to provide health care, education and housing for all. In other words, socialism." ¹⁵

Notes

1. 2010 Arab Public Opinion Poll ^↩
2. William Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, chapter 1, "Why do terrorists keep picking on the United States?"; this chapter ends in 2005; there are many more later examples, including the ones below in this report.^↩
3. White House press briefing, January 7, 2010 ^↩
4. ABC News, January 25, 2010 ^↩
5. Associated Press, January 7, 2010 ^↩
6. Washington Post, January 1, 2010 ^↩
7. Thanks to writer Gary Corseri for this last line. ^↩
8. Vorin Whan, ed. "A Soldier Speaks: Public Papers and Speeches of General of the Army Douglas MacArthur" (1965) ^↩
9. Associated Press, December 28, 2009 ^↩
10. New York Times, January 18, 2010 ^↩
11. Los Angeles Times, January 2, 1995 ^↩
12. Washington Post, September 24, 2003 ^↩
13. New York Times, November 3, 2010 ^↩
14. Washington Post, June 8, 2005 and March 23, 2006 ^↩
15. Los Angeles Times, September 2, 1994 ^↩

–

William Blum is the author of:

• Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2
• Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower
• West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir
• Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire

Portions of the books can be read, and signed copies purchased, at www.killinghope.org

Previous Anti-Empire Reports can be read at this website.

To add yourself to this mailing list simply send an email to bblum6 [at] aol.com with "add" in the subject line. I'd like your name and city in the message, but that's optional. I ask for your city only in case I'll be speaking in your area.

(Or put "remove" in the subject line to do the opposite.)

Any part of this report may be disseminated without permission. I'd appreciate it if the website were mentioned.

Home

 

 

http://www.killinghope.org/bblum6/aer88.html

 

 

“NATO means war! No to the new NATO Strategy“

Date: Saturday, November 27, 2010, 2:48 PM Dear friends and colleagues, please find a first evaluative article of the actions of the international network "No to war - No to NATO". The actions were manyfold, creative, peaceful and non-violent. Please find the ICC Conference Statement in English, French, Dutch, and German. Further translations are more than welcome and will be put on the website. On www.no-to-nato.org you can find plenty information on our actions: in the video section we have and continue to link video material of the Counter Summit and the demonstration as well as TV reports on our actions; in the press section you will find newspaper articles on our actions (if you have more media coverage, please send us links and we will post it on the webpage). We wish you all a wonderful winter time and a good slide into 2011 and would like to thank you for the support of the actions against NATO. Greetings, Reiner and Lucas "NATO means war! No to the new NATO Strategy" is the message in the final declaration of the international Counter Summit parallel to the official NATO Summit. At the Counter Summit more than 250 participants from 21 countries discussed about the new NATO Strategy and peaceful civil alternatives. The Counter Summit was being organized by the international network "No to war – No to NATO". Unanimously, the participants evaluated the new strategic concept as war-mongering and called for an alternative: a just world without war and nuclear weapons. Defining for the Counter Summit was the clear cognition that encompassing disarmament, the end of wars and the abolition of military bases can only be reached against NATO's will. The call for an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan grows stronger and broader. At the Counter Summit the dominant opinion called for a stronger connection and networking of the international peace movement which needs to coordinate more effectively its work against the military alliance of NATO. The communist party of Portugal (PCP) stood alone in neglecting "an internationalization of the protests against NATO"! For a left party, this position is not credible. The Counter Summit developed new arguments which encourage to strongly work against the implementation of the new strategic concept. Words followed actions: about 100 participants of the Counter Summit engaged in successful actions of civil disobedience on Saturday morning in which an entrance way of the congress center of the NATO Summit was blockaded non-violently. According to the organizers of the demonstration (Paz sim – NATO nao) about 30,000 people followed the call of the Portuguese Peace Council, the international network No to war – No to NATO, as well as many other organizations and parties and demonstrated peacefully and non-violently in Lisbon. No to NATO was heard throughout the city center. Red flags were the dominant accessories of this demonstration for peace which should have deserved the highlighting of collectivity for peace instead of sectarian behaviors. The summon up of violence by the media really took place: precisely, in the form of not allowing 200 activists to the demonstration and in detaining 41 activists of civil disobedience which were kept detained without being allowed to contact to lawyers. This is strictly illegal! Once more it became obvious that NATO and democracy are not compatible. As well as NATO means aggression to the exterior, it means decomposition of democracy and participation in the interior. By now all detained were set free. A successful media and public outreach campaign spread our word on the dangers of NATO to a broad audience. The activities for peace were being spread to NATO countries and in the whole world. This is a success due to continuity of the protests by the international network, the engagement of the peace movement in between the summits as well as due to the livestream on the internet. The charisma of the engagement was encouraging and shows that the debates on violence have passed and a contentual debate on politics of war is again in the focus. For this, non-violent actions are inevitable. It was important and good to protest in Lisbon moving and acting: we made a small step towards the delegitimization of NATO. Where ever NATO meets, where armament and war are propagandized, the international peace movement will be. We will not stand still and quiet – until the abolition of NATO. In total another impression stays: the successful international cooperation crossing political and ideological borders, crossing party and organizational structures within the international network "No to war – No to NATO" has not enough spread enough to Portugal to reach collective actions of the peace and leftist groups. But this is what is needed in the struggle against the most powerful military alliance of the world. To think out loud, this was an obstacle to a broader, bigger and more charismatic mobilization. Reiner Braun, ICC No to war – No to NATO -- Lucas Wirl Karlsgartenstrasse 5 12049 Berlin   -- ____________ Al Burke, samordnare Stoppa smyganslutningen till NATO! E-post: samordna@stoppanato.se Webbplats: http://www.stoppanato.se Tel. +46/(0)8 - 731 9200 Skype:  nordic.news

__,_._,___

Gerard M. Gallucci, Kosovo – the alternatives for the North

Kosovo – the alternatives for the North

Though northern Kosovo has been relatively calm of late, albeit with a series of minor incidents, it is doubtful that this situation can persist without continued restraint and an eventual political solution based upon one of two alternatives – special autonomy for the north or partition.

By Gerard Gallucci

Despite a series of minor incidents, northern Kosovo has been recently calm. The local Serbs seem to have reached an accommodation with Belgrade on a new opposition government in North Mitrovica. The new head of EULEX appears to have put aside any plans for using force to alter the status quo in the north and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon reaffirmed in the Security Council the UN's continued role there despite criticism from Kosovo Albanians. The Albanians continue to inch their way into the north – stationing Special Police where they can in north Mitrovica to hassle local Serbs passing through and preparing for another season of unilateral construction near Serb areas. But with attention south of the Ibar on the December 12 general elections, and with the end-of-year holidays and cold winter weather looming, the relative quiet in the north should continue for the next few months.

Everyone is waiting too for the start of so-called negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina as referred to in the UN General Assembly last September. "So-called" because it is not at all clear what the two sides will be able to talk about, much less negotiate, given fundamental differences over Kosovo's status. There is also considerable divergence in how each side sees the talks. The Quint countries supporting Kosovo independence – US, UK, Germany, France and Italy – expect these talks to be the venue for Serbia to finally, one way or the other, accept the reality of an independent Kosovo. They look to Belgrade to agree to putting Kosovo customs and courts in the north. President Tadic would like to accommodate the Quint and keep Serbia's EU membership on track. But politically, he cannot accept any agreements seeming to recognize Pristina's independence or authority in the north. For Tadic, Serbia's "readiness" for talks is first of all a way to buy time while the Albanians have their elections and the holidays intervene. Beyond that, Serbia may seek to divert discussions onto topics on which the two sides might agree – missing persons, for one – or stake out status neutral positions on "technical issues" – such as the courts – that the Albanians will not accept (unless pushed by the Quint). Tadic may hope that, meanwhile, he will get lucky and the EU will reward him for playing nice.

At some point, everyone's contrary expectations for "negotiations" could lead again to stalemate. But if real negotiations begin, then the question of the north will beg solution. If a frozen conflict over the north is to be avoided – and leaving aside the possibilities of conquest of the north through force or Serb surrender to Pristina – one of two alternatives will have to be chosen: special autonomy for the north (some form of Ahtisaari-Plus) or partition (adjustment of the border with Serbia to the Ibar).

Increased autonomy for the north within Kosovo might be the more elegant solution. But why rule out partition? It has been a constant refrain from pro-independence Balkanistas that partition of Kosovo would set a bad precedent for elsewhere in the Balkans. But it cannot be disputed that the independence of Kosovo – whether one views this as good or not – is an ethnic partition of Serbia. The precedent already exists. Furthermore, it is not at all clear why breaking states along ethnic boundaries is a bad thing. Where there has been internal conflict along ethnic lines, it may be best to allow people who wish to live in their own "national" community the space to do so. Some such communities might be deemed too small to be self-sustainable. In some places, groups may be too intermixed to make simple separation possible. But these are practical issues and not ones of principle. Where peoples can be separated and wish to be, why not allow them? Where separation is not realistic, then perhaps it is better for the international community to provide the necessary support for imposing a power-sharing regime with minority rights. This is what the Ahtisaari Plan provides for Kosovo and may work south of the Ibar, where the Serbs are surrounded by Albanians. But in the north, Serbs live as part of Serbia. Drawing the boundary at the Ibar would be a natural possibility.

Pristina's international sponsors may have to decide which outcome they prefer – northern autonomy within Kosovo or partition – and then bring the Albanians to accept it. (The Albanians will hold out for everything, as long as they can.) The alternative seems to be the current frozen conflict and continued international presence in Kosovo for quite some time. But can calm persist in the north without continued restraint and an eventual political solution?

Gerard M. Gallucci is a retired US diplomat and UN peacekeeper. He worked as part of US efforts to resolve the conflicts in Angola, South Africa and Sudan and as Director for Inter-American Affairs at the National Security Council. He served as UN Regional Representative in Mitrovica, Kosovo from July 2005 until October 2008. Gerard is also a member ofTransCconflict's advisory board. The views expressed in this piece are his own and do not represent the position of any organization. You can read more of Mr. Gallucci's analysis of current developments in Kosovo and elsewhere by clicking here.

http://www.transconflict.com/2010/11/kosovo-the-alternatives-for-the-north-231/

Kosovo Organ Harvesting: The Plot Thickens, by Seth J. Frantzman

 

http://www.balkanstudies.org/articles/kosovo-organ-harvesting-plot-thickens

Kosovo Organ Harvesting: The Plot Thickens

by Seth J. Frantzman

In his latest column (Bloody Coexistence, Nov.23), one of Israel's leading investigative journalists explores the bizarre horror and little-known roots of the Kosovo organ-trafficking ring. Almost all those involved were respected professionals in their communities…

In mid-November, the world media reported that Interpol was hunting for seven members of an organ-trafficking ring. They were accused of operating a clinic called Medicus in Pristina, the capital of Kosovo. Most news media were excited to reveal that two Israelis were among those named in the 46-page Interpol report. Less interest was shown in the other international members of the ring – Turkish and Albanian Muslims. Only one Israeli, Moshe Harel, was wanted by Interpol in connection with the ring. The other Israeli, Zaki Shapira, was listed as an unindicted coconspirator. A Turkish doctor and five Albanians were also indicted for their role in diverse criminal activities such as "trafficking in persons and unlawful exercise of medical activity."

THE ORIGINS of the ring appear relatively recent. According to reports, Lutfi Dervishi, a urologist and professor at Pristina University, visited Istanbul in 2006 to attend a conference. At the conference he let it be known that he was looking for someone who could perform organ transplants. He was contacted by Yusuf Sonmez, a Turkish national and surgeon who has a history of involvement with illegal organ harvesting.

Sonmez maintains a website which claims he completed his residency in surgery at Istanbul University medical faculty in 1984 and was an expert in kidney transplants. According to a November 3 article in Hurriyet he also worked at the Ministry of Health. He completed his first transplant from a live donor in 1993, and by 2006 claimed he had performed more than,1,300 kidney transplants. In 2005 he was running a private hospital in Istanbul. Turkish websites indicate that his hospital was shut down in 2007 after a police raid, during which his brother Bulent was also detained. He received a suspended sentence.

Sonmez again fell out with the law over organ thefts in 2008. His medical license was revoked and he was banned from the profession for six months – which news outlets criticized as too weak a punishment. At the time Turkish articles called him the "the Turkish butcher" and Hurriyet referred to him as "Frankenstein." In 2010, when it emerged that he was involved with organ trafficking in Kosovo, he turned up in Azerbaijan, apparently free to go about his bloody business. His status at present is not clear.

In 2006, while at the height of his power, operating his own clinic prior to the police raids, he contacted Dervishi. Sonmez then contacted a Turkish-Israeli, Harel, who according to the government of Kosovo was born in 1950 in Turkey. Harel later allegedly "identified, recruited and transported the victims, as well as managed the cash payments before the surgeries." Sonmez, it seems, was also the contact for Shapira, who has a history of brushes with the law regarding organ harvesting. Shapira was once head of kidney transplant services at Beilinson Medical Center in Petah Tikva. He was also a member of the Bellagio Task Force on global transport ethics. In the 1990s he ran afoul of ethics charges in Israel and moved to Turkey. In 2007 Shapira was arrested in Turkey; it seems he was already connected with Sonmez's hospital. Now Sonmez brought Harel and Shapira to Pristina to help run Dervishi's clinic. The clinic was operated by Dervishi's son, Arban. Illir Rrecaj, a Kosovo Health Ministry official, granted the clinic a license to do urological checkups but was, according to Interpol, privy to the actual goings on there.

 

In October 2008 police suspicions were raised when a poor man was dumped at the Pristina airport and it was found his kidney had been removed. A raid on the Medicus clinic discovered that the organ harvesting ring had been bringing in poverty stricken patients from countries such as Turkey and Russia, promising them 15,000 euros, and then selling their organs for upward of 100,000 euros. Rrecaj was dismissed from his post. On November 4, Harel was arrested.

BUT ACCORDING to other sources it appears the tentacles of the case go deeper. The Serbian newspaper Blic claims that Dervishi was also involved in the murder and harvesting of organs from Serbs who were captured by ethnic Albanian terrorists during the Kosovo war of 1999. After the war there were rumors that Kosovar Albanians were keeping Serb prisoners in camps near the Kosovo border with Albania.

A Spanish KFOR contingent attempted to penetrate the village of Vrelo but was called back. Carla Del Ponte, the former chief prosecutor of the UN for war crimes committed in Yugoslavia, claimed in her 2008 book that as many as 300 Serbs were murdered for their organs just across the border in the Albanian town of Burrel. The infamous "clinic" in Burrel became known as the "yellow house," but not until 2004 was it visited by a UN team to investigate the accusations. By then, only a few traces of blood remained.

According to Blic, in 1998 during the Kosovo crises, "[a] witness told Serbian war crimes prosecutors that he saw Dr. Lutfi Dervishi at locations where it was suspected that organs had been extracted from civilian prisoners and sold later." Another Serbian source alleges that Shapira was also involved in 1999 in instructing those who harvested the organs, and according to the Croatian magazine Politika, he showed up in Macedonia in the same year, connected to a similar operation. This claim is based on the fact that he had Turkish connections who were supporting the Kosovars during the war.

Whatever the case, it seems the recent organ-trafficking scandal is merely the latest emergence of the dark cloud that has hung over Kosovo for years; it has become a center for human and organ trafficking in Europe.

What makes the present case so shocking is that almost all those involved were respected professionals in their communities.A professor from Pristina, a member of the Kosovo Health Ministry, an Istanbul doctor and pioneer in organ transplants and a former head of transplant services at Beilinson. What made these men turn evil? What sort of strange dark coexistence is this, where Turks and Israelis work together to steal organs?

Does their ring have its origins in the dirty war fought in Kosovo in 1998-1999? The anti-Israel and anti-Semitic media like to shed light on supposed Israeli involvement in organ trafficking, but what this case shows is that the networks behind the story have much deeper and more disturbing roots.

NATO summit: The death of the west

The death of the west

19 November 2010 România libera Bucharest

 

The NATO summit to be held in Lisbon on 19 and 20 November will be marked by the rise of Russian influence in the alliance. A Romanian editorialist highlights the vital importance of the link between Eastern Europe and Washington.

Cristian Câmpeanu

Romanians should get used to the idea of living in a Europe where NATO will no be longer able to guarantee their security. The Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis has left us with only one option: the United States.

Hello and welcome to the 19th century! From now on — now being the first day of the "historic" NATO summit in Lisbon — we will be living in a new historic reality and a new geopolitical era. The summit is "historic," but not for the reasons cited by NATO officials and political leaders.

It is not a question — as promised in the promotional literature for the event — of inaugurating a more efficient and flexible alliance, but of official recognition for the death of the strategic and military concept of the "West," and the transformation of NATO into an EU-Russian political club, with the United States as an associate member.

The "problem" of Russia

It is a development that was in many ways inevitable. The disappearance of the Cold War enemy in the shape of the Soviet Union made NATO a victim of its own success. The wars in the Balkans highlighted Europe's military weakness, and the war in Afghanistan created a rift between the US and its European allies. Their inability to make a significant contribution to victory over the Taliban or to the stabilisation of the country, and the fact that some members of the alliance seemed to be incapable of joining in the fight while others were forced to take most of the casualties, resulted in the gradual crumbling of the alliance.

Some commentators have remarked on the historical irony of the fact that NATO should perish in Afghanistan, a country that was also responsible for the demise of the Soviet Union. But in so doing, they overlook the role played by Iraq, which triggered the first real crisis of the "West."

Then there is also the "problem" of Russia. The arrival of Vladimir Putin and his team of former KGB operatives in the Kremlin wiped out whatever small progress Boris Yeltsin had made in terms of democracy and the rule of law. In spite of all this, Western countries have turned a blind eye to abuses and the closing of Russian society in exchange for access to natural gas and cheap raw materials. And this has resulted in a widening rift between NATO allies that came to the fore at the 2008 Bucharest summit when Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy both fought tooth and nail to defend the status quo, and reject the Membership Action Plans (MAP) of the Ukraine and Georgia — a position that amounted to an implicit recognition of Russia's right to a veto in NATO affairs. Only a few months later, the invasion of Georgia heralded a de facto return to the 19th-century world of spheres of influence and the Concert of Europe, which had previously been wiped out by the massacre that was the First World War.

Americans are not going to disappear

The return to this world order will be made official tomorrow by the invitation extended to Russia to participate in the anti-missile shield. A study recently published by the European Council on Foreign Relations already speaks of the new architeture of European security that will be determined within the framework of a trilateral dialogue between the EU, Russia and Turkey. NATO does not enter into the equation. But the EU does not really mean Europe's 27 member states. Merkel made promises about European policy to Medvedev  without consulting her European partners, and there is no denying the symbolic importance of the Russian President's refusal to accept an invitation to the Lisbon summit addressed to him by the General Secretary of NATO, before finally agreeing to turn up on the behest of Sarkozy and Merkel.

Of course, the Americans are not going to disappear from the region, because they have to defend their interests in the Middle East and look after the anti-missile shield. Even if the Obama administration has wiped the slate clean and the White House is ready to give Russia the benefit of the doubt, the reinforcement of the alliance with the United States remains the best security option, better than joining the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis.

No doubt we will be conscious of yet another historical irony when the Russian troops that were posted here in the communist era return to Romania in their new role as "advisers"  on the installation of the new anti-missile shield.

Co-operation
European defence on the back burner

Barack Obama is coming to the NATO summit in Lisbon on 19 and 20 November "to mediate the conflict between Merkel and Sarkozy", announces i. The Portuguese daily explains that nuclear deterrents are one bone of contention between the two leaders: "Germany thinks NATO ought to set an example in disarmament, while France thinks the nuclear option is vital to Europe's future."

This disagreement is one of several that might nip the European defence scheme in the bud. "From the Franco-British summit in London to the North Atlantic summit in Lisbon, the French defence policy seems to be scuppering Europe's every ambition in the space of a fortnight," writes political scientist Louis Gautier in Le Monde. Following the military cooperation deal with London signed on 2 November, Paris "is turning its back on European defence". "Struggling as it is to fund their own armies, France and the UK have opted to team up in what may be a vain hope of prolonging their military leadership in Europe." But their deal "runs counter to the European spirit" in that it "moves France away from Germany, our partner (in matters of armament as well)" laments the professor, "at the very time when Germany is busy overhauling its whole defence system", i.e. professionalising its army.

http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/article/397711-death-west

HOW OLD IS THE NEW NATO CONCEPT?

Zivadin Jovanovic                                                    November, 2010.

Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals

 

                          

                      HOW OLD IS THE NEW NATO CONCEPT?

 

In the eve of the NATO Lisbon summit there is a need to recall that eleven years ago Serbia (FRY) was a testing ground and first victim of so called new concept of NATO strategy which is to be formally endorsed in Lisbon November 19/20.

It is expected that the leaders of NATO members will, among other things, reauthorize themselves to undertake military actions beyond the area of their own territories, in fact, all over the globe. What will be necessary is to just formally proclaim that in certain region, certain country their interests are jeopardized – economic, energy, trade, routes. NATO will not seek authorization of the UN Security Council – it will act by its own merits. It imposes itself above UN, OSCE and all other international bodies. Division of burden and tasks with European Union will be the pillar of the new NATO strategic concept.

This concept was openly tested in Serbia (FRY) in 1999. "NATO has now had more than a decade of experience in the requirements to do expeditionary operations" – stated Michele Flournoy recently explaining the background of 21^st century NATO strategy to be adopted at the Lisbon Summit. One can suppose that "more than a decade of experience" include also NATO interventions in the civil wars in Bosnia and Herzegovina 1995, occupations of Afghanistan 2001 and of Irak 2003. What have been results of USA/NATO "expeditionary operations"? What are human losses, what are the losses in terms of instability, insecurity, financial and economic set-backs and lasting poverty, criminalization?  Are the Balkans, Afghanistan, Irak and other regions which have been victims of USA/NATO "expeditionary operations" more stable, more economically advanced today then before?

Putting aside other regions and other examples, let us recall only that during 72 days of continuous military aggression against Serbia NATO left thousands of dead, about 10.000 wounded, two thirds civilians, economy completely destroyed, environment polluted by depleted uranium missiles, hundreds of thousands of displaced. Even today, some of the buildings in the heart of Belgrade remain in ruins while over 200.000 of Serbs from Kosovo and Metohija cannot return to their homes.

NATO countries supported unilateral illegal secession of Kosovo and Metohija from Serbia (2008), they led the process of recognition of illegal creature of theirs. 

In the 90-ties many NATO countries had been financing, training and arming terrorist KLA. In return, KLA was their ground force in the time of aggression. Today NATO is arming, training and financing illegal Army of illegal Kosovo and Metohija composed of elements of former terrorist KLA. USA, Britain, Germany and Turkey are leading in this process.

No wonder that Kosovo and Metohija is perceived by many countries as NATO-state (NATO-stan), by others as a narco-state. In any case, military base "Bondstil" in Kosovo remains the largest USA base in Europe (some claim in the world). Some 9.000 NATO tropes today still occupy Kosovo while the Province continues to be safe heaven for narco-mafia, transit route of heroin from Afghanistan to Central and Northern Europe, for all sorts of international organized crime.

The implication of NATO aggression and unilateral secession of Kosovo and Metohija is instability in the region, growing socio-economic tensions.

At the end of October 2010 "representatives" of Albanians from Serbia, FYROM (Macedonia), Greece and Montenegro gathered in Tirana from where they formally launched common objective – to establish "natural Albania". For some reasons they did not say Greater Albania". All Albanians in one state! It should be recalled that before that gathering, high representatives of Albania, including the Prime Minister himself, called for unification of all Albanians. Former head of OSCE mission to Kosovo (KVM), USA ambassador William Walker at the beginning of November 2010, made a statement that Albanians from Kosovo have the right to unite with Albania. All in all, there are open claims for new redrawing of the borders in the Balkan.

NATO aggression on Serbia in 1999, NATO strategy in general, led to rise of secessions, legitimization of interventions, undermining of the role of UN and international law.

NATO has not resolved any problem in the Balkans, neither could it do so. Instead, NATO made the Balkan region of prolonged instability. The same applies to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Irak. Is this the role of NATO that Europe and the world want to see in the whole of 21 century?

 

With the best wishes,

 

Živadin Jovanović

Belgrade Forum for e World of Equals

Sremska 6/IV sprat

Tel:   + 381 11 32 83 778

Mob: + 381 63 327 859

 

 

Lisbon NATO Summit: Time for reflection

Lisbon NATO Summit: Time for reflection

14.11.2010 | 20:16

NATO is the anathema of today's international community, serving no purpose other than pandering to the needs, whims and caprices of the arms lobby which gravitates around the White House, creating a supra-national umbrella apparently lending credence to its expansionist policies.

As billions of people around the world wonder how they are going to put a crust of bread on the table at dinner time, Lisbon's luxury hotels are all booked up for the visit of the NATO delegations, representing many of the countries which spent centuries siphoning off resources under imperialist policies, destroying peoples and cultures and committing massacres.

And as the NATO delegations gather for the conference, there is an enormous cloud on the horizon, so enormous it blots out the sun illuminating NATO's very existence: what is NATO?

NATO began as a military and political alliance to defend the North Atlantic space against attack, a mutual defence agreement guaranteeing a massive response to any attack on a member state way back in 1949, over sixty years ago. Most of Africa was still ruled by imperialist powers, the ink was not yet dry on India's or Pakistan's treaties of independence from the British Raj, Queen Elizabeth II (who today is celebrating almost her diamond anniversary, 6 decades, on the throne) was just a royal princess, Churchill was yet to have another term as Prime Minister of the UK.

This attack never came, mainly because the Warsaw Pact was essentially a defensive military alliance, and therefore any talk about NATO "winning" the Cold War is ridiculous, and proof of sour grapes by those who knew very well that had NATO ever started hostilities, the Soviet Union would have obliterated its forces and the main cities of its member states within minutes.

So when the Warsaw Pact dissolved voluntarily on July 1, 1991 following the voluntary dissolution of the USSR and the reshaping of the geo-political space it had occupied between January 19, 1990 and December 31, 1991 why did NATO not follow suit?

Thousands of pages have been written on this topic but let us condense them into one or two: NATO exists on one level, a military one, with pretexts to perpetuate its own existence existing on another two, the political and social areas. And the more we study, the more we see that the military arm of NATO is the head of the octopus.

Pretexts, indeed, because when the Warsaw Pact dissolved, NATO lied, giving various pledges over the years that it would not station "substantial combat forces" on territories belonging to the former Warsaw Pact. Yet NATO subsequently did expand, creating new markets for its weapons and creating new sources of financing for Washington's wars.

That having been said, the rest is easy to explain. Take for example the trillion-dollar wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (the need to finance an expansionist policy based upon control of the Earth's energy resources, not by Lisbon, or Tirana, or Copenhagen, or Brussels, but by Washington).

It is easy to explain when we see that the Pentagon likes to dole out military contracts for weaponry tested in the battlefield, hence the need to create more conflicts and the more member states involved, the greater the sense of legitimacy.

It is easy to explain when we see that under NATO's able management, the opium production in Afghanistan, suppressed by the Taleban, has increased not four, nor fourteen but forty-fold. It is easy to explain when we see the need to create an ever-wider umbrella of legitimacy to guarantee that those responsible for NATO's war crimes will never be held accountable. Added to this, under NATO, Afghanistan has also become the world's leading supplier of hashish.

As a military alliance, NATO is an abject failure, restricted to paying off the Sunni militia in Iraq not to attack and to paying the Taleban to accompany NATO convoys in Afghanistan, while it is common knowledge that neither the Taleban, nor Al Qaeda, can be defeated by this multi-national force.

As a political grouping, how constitutional is it for NATO member states to support fellow members whose ex-leaders are the subject of arrest warrants for war crimes at the ICC in The Hague?

And as an organization which is trying to forge a social vector to justify itself, who or what is NATO and what right does it have to supplant the efforts of the UNO? And here lies the crux of the matter: in an international community with a United Nations Organization supposedly responsible for the resolution of international conflict and crisis management and now without a Warsaw Pact, where does NATO fit in?

Nowhere.

The only option open to NATO in Lisbon is to do the decent thing and disband, as a mutual and multilateral token of goodwill. Yet this will not happen, for the psyche behind NATO is sinister and not decent and the organization is anything but multilateral. Ask Portuguese President Anibal Silva about the time he was Prime Minister, cowering in a bunker, at the time of the first Gulf War, and the pressures NATO exerted at the time upon the country which now hosts the Summit...

Now, if NATO engaged Russia and the CSTO with a view to creating a worldwide rapid reaction force, integrating it into a UNO which was universally respected, nobody would have an axe to grind.

To note, the anti-NATO organizations gathering in Lisbon must remember that they represent the anti-NATO international community and as such have the obligation to behave in a way which respects the law and does not bring the image of those who have fought long and hard for justice against this violent anachronism into disrepute.

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

 

http://www.moscowtopnews.com/

Pravda.Ru